A great interview of Michael Moore yesterday on the Rachel Maddow show:
The first part is mainly focusing on a clip from Bowling for Columbine, about his success in getting Wal-Mart stores to stop selling ammunition. But of much more interest to me is the part beyond about the 7:30 mark on the video. Here he goes into why Canada, which has very widespread gun ownership and hunting like in the U.S., has only about 200 murders a year, while in the U.S. it is SO much higher. Why? Listen to the regulation of guns there! And it's just over the border, with a comparable culture in nearly every other way to the U.S., in most regions.
From Wikipedia firearms deaths by country data (link) (numbers = #/100,000 population per year):
Country -- Total firearm-related death rate-- Homicides -- Suicides -- Unintentional deaths -- Year
United States -- 10.2 /15.22 -- 7.07 -- 7.35 -- 0.59 -- 2004/1993
Canada -- 4.78 -- 0.76 -- 3.72 -- 0.22 -- 1992
(see link for explanation of data and cited studies)
Pro-gun folks, why else, other than tougher regulation, do you think their deadly shooting numbers are so low in Canada?
Population density
ReplyDeleteHomogeneity of culture
1/3rd fewer single parent family homes (U.S. 34% - Canada 22%)
Now, the question in return --- can you show if the gun laws in Canada resulted in a change in the crime rates?
Not just the 'gun crimes' but all crimes?
#1. It's a magazine, not a clip. If you continue to use the incorrect name you will lose all credibility in the debate. You sound like you don't know what you are talking about. It isn't quite "Shoulder thing that goes up" territory, but close
ReplyDelete#2. Canadian culture and US culture are vastly different. Don't ignore the fact that in the US, most murders are gang and drug related. Exclude these murders and our murder rate drops very low. That indicates to me that the best solution is to fix the drug and gang problem if you want to have an effect on US murder rates.
Why does Chicago boast a 5x higher homicide rate than the rest of the state?
ReplyDeleteAnd just FYI, Even numbers from Canada show that their laws didn't effect firearm death rates:
ReplyDeleteA Report from statistics Canada that was very carefully written with nice charts right in front showing decreasing deaths by firearms and marks to the various laws enacted.
Two problems:
1) The suicide deaths by firearms were decreasing before the various gun control schemes were enacted. A weak correlation at best.
2) The rate of firearm homicides did decrease. In proportion the the decline in homicides overall. "the share of homicides in which a firearm was used remained
fairly stable over the entire period". No correlation there at all.
So did firearm laws cause a decrease in non-firearm crimes?
This is what needs to be said over and over again. In addition, Moore pointed out that one bullet at WalMart cost 17 cents. What is a life worth, he asked? A 17 cent bullet can end a life in an instant. Maybe we should be taking about the economics of guns and "gun control".
ReplyDeleteWell because you, like just about every other anti-gunner out there, refuse to acknowledge the social and socio-economic factors contributing to violent crime and instead, continue to parrot the more guns=more crime meme despite statistics showing otherwise. Unless you're pretty confident that the challenges facing residents of remote British Columbia are one and the same as those facing Urban Chicagoans.
ReplyDeleteMost people absent an agenda are willing to acknowledge and address the social situations; one parent households, high school dropout rates, teen pregnancy, poverty, population density, and a plethora of other social conditions contributing to violent crime, which are not as prevalent in Canada.
I'm also wondering why you're not concerned with overall violent crime, ie, rapes, assaults, robbery, etc....? I know why, because a simple google search yields the results you're not interested in.....that being that gun control havens like the UK have a comparable, or higher per capita rate of violent crime than the US does.
You keep blaming the inanimate object....the rest of us will continue to try to address the real problem.
PS....Mexico has tight civilian regulation of firearms and also borders the US. Are guns more accurate when shot in Mexico than in Canada?
Mexico has a near ban on civilian possession of firearms and also borders the US. If tight regulation of guns is the variable, then why the difference between Mexico and Canada gun violence?
ReplyDeleteOh, that's right, because there are many more social and socio-economic factors contributing to violence than inanimate objects do.
Because they are too busy playing hockey and working.
ReplyDeleteBut in all seriousness, I don't think you can look at the numbers in a different country and automatically assume that there are fewer murders simply due to stricter gun laws.
ReplyDeleteLook at Japan: Far stricter regulations than...well, probably anywhere. Yet their suicide rate, even with firearms, is astronomical.
The point being, cultural differences play a huge factor in things like murder/crime/general badness. Canada has much less cultural diversity than the United States and, as a result, much less tension among its citizens. Yes, that seems un-politically correct to say, but it is the reality; the less diverse the culture, the fewer the problems.
"With a comparable culture in nearly every other way to the U.S., in most regions."
ReplyDeleteThat "nearly" covers a lot. There are significant differences in the population demographics of the two countires.
I know Wikipedia certainly isn't a definitive source but it illustrates the point.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Comparisons
The bottom line is that it looks like direct comparisons between countries are difficult. It also looks like our murder rates -- the one category that can be compared -- are now pretty similar (around 5/100,000 in the US and ~2/100,000 in Canada). Canada is still lower, but if current trends continue we'll meet fairly soon, and either way, the rates are pretty darn low. The difference is that in Canada most of the murders are not committed with firearms. Are victims less dead if they're killed with a knife or beaten by a gang?
If you look at the suicide rates (and that's where the vast majority of your firearms deaths come from), the rate in Canada is very similar to the US rate (or perhaps a bit higher). Again, the difference is that in the US, more people favor guns. Are people who commit suicide less dead if they hang themselves or overdose on medication?
The initial look is that there seems to be a substitution effect. People who are planning on committing a violent crime or want to kill themselves will use a gun if it is available, but if it isn't, then they'll go to their next best option (which is also often lethal).
For better answers you need to look at peer reviewed studies and research that acknowledge the issues in the dataset, find ways to work around them, and control for the key variables. For example, we know that violent crime is strongly correlated with certain factors like substance abuse. Maybe Canada has a lower rate of substance abuse than the US which explains the difference is crime figures. If you control for rates in substance abuse then how does the data look?
Agreed with Molon Labe: What about Mexico? Much tighter restrictions but way, way more violence. Great Britain: Violent crime is skyrocketing while it has, in fact, slowed down here in America *after* the "Assault Weapons Ban" expired.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyone who takes Michael Moore or Rachel Maddow seriously has no interest in logical discourse. Good heavens, if there are any better examples of one-sided bias, I am not aware of them... Oh, my bad; almost forgot about Keith Olberman.
Thirdpower, where do you get your numbers? Can you share a link or citation?
ReplyDeleteWow,
ReplyDelete11 comments on this thread and the only reply is to ask Third for his citation?
Where is the civil discourse? Where is the free flow of ideas and information?
Baldr, it is beginning to look like you aren't really willing to talk about the issues.
Hi, Chris. Good comment. Thanks for the link to the Canada data.
ReplyDeleteI hope to examine the "gun deaths" vs. "all violent deaths" question closer. I seem to remember some citations that examined that question, for both suicides and homicides. This most certainly is showing as a major question that many people are commenting on (and some people are very sensitive about). I want to convince myself of the truth of that belief with some actual data or published papers. If you have more citations or data to share on that point that you found particularly helpful, please share.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteLet's do a quick thought experiment in regards to your statement
I hope to examine the "gun deaths" vs. "all violent deaths" question closer.
First perspective-- Your death
You and many others complain there are too many 'gun deaths' happening.
Would your death be any more significant if a criminal killed you with a firearm or any other tool?
Do the victims of firearm related murders have special significance because of the method used to kill them is the question?
Second perspective -- a potential victim who successfully defended their life.
Do you think that their is a special significance to the victim of a crime if they are able to kill their attack with a firearm or any other tool?
The criminal is dead either way but the chances of a victim surviving increases dramatically if they have a firearm, wouldn't you agree?
The problem I have with most gun control proposals is they make it harder for my 40 something year old wife to defend herself effectively. They make it harder for my 20 something, 100 something pound daughter to effectively defend herself against a murderer, mugger or rapist.
Which brings me to my last point.
Pro-gun folks, why else, other than tougher regulation, do you think their deadly shooting numbers are so low in Canada?
Given the fact you are looking at crimes, shouldn't you be looking at reasons other than tougher regulation there are fewer criminals in Canada?
I certainly can.
ReplyDeletehttp://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2010/10/no-correlation-in-canada.html
And for Illinois:
ReplyDeletehttp://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2009/10/illinois-factoids-2008.html
Patience, Bob. I have a busy life and can't get around to commenting often. I barely have time to post your comments and filter out all the ones that threaten or use foul language.
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly, Bob. Of course every life is precious, and a murder by any means is horrible! It's just that guns are intended for killing, and so easy to do so, with higher death rates than other tools. Why else do you carry a gun instead of a knife? It's just as deadly in the wrong hands, and that is what we on the gun control side try to do: reduce the availability to those "wrong hands." Tougher regulation doesn't prevent any law-abiding adult, like your wife or daughter, from purchasing a gun and using it if needed. If anything it can slow the availability due to a background check or waiting period, or limiting how many or what kinds of firearms are available. Better regulation only makes it harder for the bad guys, forcing them underground for weapons, which are harder to get, more expensive, and more strictly sentenced if caught.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are always other factors to consider when comparing U.S. to Canada, and there is no way to completely control for all of them in any dataset. I'm open to comparing other data sets, though. I don't doubt that some factors, such as drug regulation and crime statistics have a role to play, but I don't currently believe that they can explain the huge divide in gun death statistics.
Thanks for the links, Thirdpower, particularly the one about Illinois. Chicago has been a particularly violent city. But the guns used in crime there have been traced back to sources outside of Chicago and into neighboring states. Weaker regulation in those areas is the real downfall of Chicago, making ineffective the strict gun laws there (not as strict now, of course). It'll be interesting to follow the statistics following the recent legal changes there.
ReplyDeleteSo why does Windsor, ON have such a low crime rate compared to Detroit? Or do you think smuggling guns across the border woud be difficult? When was the last time you got searched going into Canada?
ReplyDeleteThis is one issue I've looked at in some detail, using border states for comparison. I included only states that had a land border with Canada. You can see crime rates are comparable, except for Ontario and New York, which is ironic given that New York has among the strictest gun laws in the United States -- not all that far off from Canada's.
ReplyDeleteI did not include murder in this, but if I recall, that was even more comparable. There are a lot of reasons that could explain differences or similarities, but it would seem to suggest gun laws are not the independent variable at work here.
"But the guns used in crime there have been traced back to sources outside of Chicago and into neighboring states."
ReplyDeleteOutside of Chicago and primarily w/i the state where there is already full licensing. What you avoid is the question as to WHY the violence is 5X higher in Chicago where firearms need to be illegally trafficked in? WHY is it more violent, particularly in certain neighborhoods? There are already trafficking laws in place? Why aren't they dissuading criminals?
Baldr Odinson, the "iron pipline" excuse is pretty flimsy at best. I have commented ad nauseum on other blogs about the violent crime rates in Philadelphia, PA and Camden, NJ. These are essentially the same "greater metropolitan area." They are just separated by a river, but are essentially one large urban area. In Camden, with NJ's strict gun laws (per the Brady scorecard), the violent crime rate is 2114/100K, almost four times the national average of 553/100K, with murders at 40/100K.* In contrast, Philly, with PA's "weak" gun laws (including a Shall Issue CCW law), the violent crime rate is 1562/100K with 28/100K murders.** Although this is admittedly higher than the national average, it is much better than Camden. If Philly is supplying guns to Camden, which is a common "logical" gun control meme, how is it that Camden's violent crime statistics are far worse than Philly's? Even Camden's murder rate is about 50% higher than Philly's. In my opinion (albeit a fairly reasoned and well thought out one), this case study serves as excellent proof of one of two things:
ReplyDelete1. Anti-gun laws don't prevent violent crime or even murders (although they may affect the particular tool used in the commission of a crime).
Or, 2. The presence of a statistically significant, but anonymous, population of CCWers has a beneficial deterrent effect on violent crime and murder rates.
The "iron pipeline" meme doesn't even deserve mention in the light of this case study.
My supporting data, from the 2006 FBI statistics, can be found at:
* = http://camdennj.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
**= http://philadelphia.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteTougher regulation doesn't prevent any law-abiding adult, like your wife or daughter, from purchasing a gun and using it if needed.
Is that statement a factual statement (i.e. something you can prove ) or is it just your opinion?
Because I'm betting you can't prove it.
Given the 'tougher regulations' on Saturday Night specials have driven prices up - many people can't afford to purchase firearms.
That tougher regulation is keeping people from purchasing firearms.
Given that some states require a permit to purchase -- a tougher regulation -- and that purchase costs money, time and effort; that has kept people from being able to afford firearms.
That tougher regulation is keeping people from purchasing firearms.
Given that some states/counties have 'may issue permitting' -- a tougher regulation, some people have been denied permits at the discretion of the local law enforcement -- many times without cause.
That tougher regulation is keeping people from purchasing firearms.
Of course every life is precious, and a murder by any means is horrible! It's just that guns are intended for killing, and so easy to do so, with higher death rates than other tools.
Then why are you trying to make it harder for honest citizens like my wife, my daughter or myself (asthma isn't a lot of fun) to purchase a firearm that keeps us having to fight hand to hand with criminals?
Better regulation only makes it harder for the bad guys, forcing them underground for weapons, which are harder to get, more expensive, and more strictly sentenced if caught.
Again, do you offer any proof of your statements?
Can you show any evidence that gun control has reduce the availability, increased the costs of firearms for criminals?
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: Don't be silly, Bob. Of course every life is precious, and a murder by any means is horrible!
In that case, why do you balk at looking at total rates of suicide and violent crime rather than just looking at firearms deaths? I understand your canard of "oh, well, total violence is a big problem, I'm just focusing on one subset of it." Or, maybe it is because the real world data doesn't fit your preconceptions.
Which scenario do you prefer:
1 death by firearm and 99 deaths by other means
50 deaths by firearm and 40 deaths by other means
I prefer the latter, myself, because there are fewer total deaths. But I suppose looking at things your way, the former scenario is better because there are fewer deaths by firearm.
Since you actually seem to care about examining numbers, I still challenge you to find one single peer reviewed study that establishes a causal link between "more firearms = more overall death" which underlies your entire argument. After all, any researcher begins with a literature review before crunching their own numbers, right? I still haven't found any that don't have serious methodological flaws.
Sebastian, I went to your link. As you said, Canada counts many crimes as violent which we do not, so of course their counts are artificially higher. You list murder rates, but here I am speaking of murder by firearm, which you do not break out. In any case, for general murders, I tallied 6 states higher in Canada, and 6 higher in the U.S., compared to their bordering neighbor. (Also, your links to the statistics sites are broken, so I have no way to go back to your original data set)
ReplyDeleteI just love it when gun nuts talk about other ways of killing and how knives and axes should be outlawed if guns are. Why don't these guys carry knives and axes? Because they know that guns are far more lethal. Let's cut the nonsense, boys, and own up to why you carry a gun.
ReplyDeleteEumenides,
ReplyDeleteI actually carry a knife because it is a useful tool.
I don't want to have to fight off a mugger with it.
I also carry a firearm because it is a useful tool.
I don't want to have to fight off a mugger with it either.
But I will do what it takes to protect myself and my family.
Why don't you own up to why you are working to keep people from being able to defend themselves?
eumenides:
ReplyDeleteI carry a firearm for the same reason I wear a seat belt in my car, and have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in my house. It is a TOOL to help keep myself and my family safe, and ONLY if it is absolutely needed as a last resort - nothing more, nothing less.
Now YOU may see the evil men do with firearms and project that onto the gun itself, but the absolute fact remains that PURPOSE is defined by the person possessing the firearm and what their goal is. If a criminal intends to threaten someone with it to get their money, then THAT is its purpose. If someone like myself intends to use it only for self defense, then that is the purpose it will be used for.
The fact proven by statistics is that someone resisting (with a firearm) a violent criminal attack is less likely to be killed or injured. Now I also see the flip side, that a criminal using a firearm in a crime is more likely to kill or injure their victim.
Here's the biggest fact to consider: All that gun control does is remove the firearm from the hands of those unwilling to commit crimes who predominantly use guns for good purposes, while the criminals that intend to harm and threaten others will continue to break the law and have them.
...Orygunner...
"It's just that guns are intended for killing... "
ReplyDeleteYou keep saying this. It's an article of faith for you, but I disagree. Guns were originally designed for killing, sure, but to say that people only intend on killing with them is absolutely ludicrous.
First of all, target shooting and marksmanship are practiced by millions of people around the world. Competetive shooting events have been part of the Olympics since the first modern Olympics in 1896. The NRA was actually formed in 1871 for the purpose of promoting rifle shooting, not as a pro-2A lobbying organization. Recreational shooting is the national sport of Switzerland—the Knabenschiessen festival is a shooting competition for 13-17 year olds that dates back to the 17th century.
This country has some 60 million gun owners with about 200 million guns. If they are only intended for killing, then that's either a lot of defective guns, or those bloodthirsty killers are doing it wrong, since the vast, monumentally overwhelming majority of those guns and gun owners never kill anyone.
Obviously, it's quite easy to own a gun and not kill anyone with it.
"...with higher death rates than other tools."
Actually, cars kill far more people than guns do. Just because cars aren't "intended for killing" doesn't make them less deadly, and isn't that what matters?
Of course, 30% of all suicides, 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents and 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol, so maybe you should be working to restrict or ban alcohol instead, since it kills more than 3x as many people a year in this country as guns do. But we already tried that.
Actually, Chicago is no more violent than Atlanta, GA. So, if the gun apologists are going to hold up Chicago as an example--we really ought not omit Atlanta. Of Course, Atlanta has extremely lax gun laws.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, why does NOLA far outpace Chicago?
Getting back to Canada, when Chris suggests Canada's murder rate is "similar" to that of the US--I can only laugh. Canada's per capita murder rate is 1.9, the US's 5.0. How on earth having a murder rate that that is over 250% greater is "similar" beats me.
"Speaking of which, why does NOLA far outpace Chicago?"
ReplyDeleteSince we're playing the "pick-a-city" game, I have one...Camden NJ. #2 behind NOLA for most violent city in the US despite their draconian gun laws.
Seems to me that when you look at ALL cities in the US, there's only one conclusion....that gun laws affect crime neither positively nor negatively.
So what's the next logical avenue of approach? Continue enacting feel-good gun control laws which aren't working, or start addressing the real roots of violent crime?
All of this shows that violence doesn't correlate to gun control or lack thereof.
ReplyDeleteWhat matter is this, if you find yourself faced with a violent criminal, are you better off with or without the option to defend yourself with a gun. FBI data suggests you are better off defending yourself with a gun.
I don't know about you, but my hand-to-hand combat days aren't just long past, they never were.
We had a gun free utopia about a 1000 years ago, we called it "The Dark Ages". The strong were free to abuse the weak. This is the utopia gun controllers apparently want to resurrect.
Publius, the gun control movement isn't about banning all guns to all people. We aren't advocating a "gun free utopia". It's about reducing gun-related violence by reducing the availability of guns to criminals, children, and mentally unstable people and the misuse of guns. Even with the strictest gun control laws, you are still able to get a gun for self-defense.
ReplyDeleteMolon Labe said, "...you, like just about every other anti-gunner out there, refuse to acknowledge the social and socio-economic factors contributing to violent crime and instead, continue to parrot the more guns=more crime meme despite statistics showing otherwise."
ReplyDeleteI think that's a commonly repeated slur on gun control folks which is the result of mindless repeating what other gun extremists have said. Talk about "parrot" behaviour.
The fact is no gun control person I know of is guilty of this. We understand that there are many factors involved in addition to gun availability. When we suggest gun restrictions that would help, we don't ask for them in place of job creation or better education or stricter treatment of violent offenders. We suggest our ideas IN ADDITION to those other initiatives that are ongoing.
Why, Mr. Labe (I know what molon labe means, before you get all excited), why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what we say instead of just arguing the issues at hand?
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteYou say that the gun control movement isn't about banning all guns to all people but many people in the gun control movement advocate that.
You say that the gun control movement isn't about banning all guns to all people but many people advocate laws and restrictions that will end up doing exactly that.
You say that the gun control movement isn't about banning all guns to all people but the guns you want you to ban are the ones we are most interested in.
You say that the gun control movement isn't about banning all guns to all people but you -- on this very blog -- can not name a single current law that you would repeal.
Joan Peterson has not named a single law she would repeal. Trollb302000, excuse me, Mikeb302000 has said no compromise.
Why should we believe this statement when every action, every effort seems to point to the goal of a complete civilian ban?
Even with the strictest gun control laws, you are still able to get a gun for self-defense.
And I'm going to call you out on the lie in that sentence.
3 years ago, could the citizens of Washington D.C. get a gun for self defense?
No.
3 Years ago, could the citizens of Chicago get a gun for self defense?
NO.
It would greatly help your side if you wouldn't flat out lie.
"Even with the strictest gun control laws, you are still able to get a gun for self-defense. "
ReplyDeleteNow. After multiple court cases and years of passing progressive firearm laws.
Under the earlier measures supported by the gun control lobby, that wasn't true.
@Baldr: You wrote,
ReplyDelete" It's about reducing gun-related violence by reducing the availability of guns to criminals, children, and mentally unstable people and the misuse of guns. Even with the strictest gun control laws, you are still able to get a gun for self-defense."
For the first part, I'm not sure what the goal of "making it harder" is supposed to accomplish. You will only dissuade the casual interest in firearms, because those that are determined will still be able to get one, regardless of WHAT laws you put in place.
For the second part, I have a question. Do you believe that people have the right to CARRY a gun for self defense, or that self defense only applies in the home? Because in the cities and states with the strictest gun control laws you mention, carrying a firearm for self defense is prohibited for all or most citizens.
...Orygunner...
Thirdpower, that used to be true for D.C. and Chicago, at least for purchases within those cities. But may statement is about current laws.
ReplyDeleteMikeB302000,
ReplyDeleteWe suggest our ideas IN ADDITION to those other initiatives that are ongoing.
Then you'll have no trouble showing where you've supported those other initiatives, right Sparky?
How about a simple list of the blog posts you've done about the and how you support them?
Sean - He used "clip" to describe a portion of video. I think that is a fair use of the word.
ReplyDelete@Baldr - Walmart quit selling ammunition? When? I bought a shotgun at Walmart about 15 years ago, but I've never stopped buying ammunition there. I picked some up this year!
Folks, I've been pretty sick, so please excuse me for not approving in a timely fashion the reams of comments you've been sending. It's not for lack of love (well, okay, maybe that's a big overstatement....).
ReplyDeleteBob, don't call me a liar. You may have a different opinion or read on information, but I call it as I see it. Respect. Such name-calling is guaranteed to have your comment deleted.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the last part of your question, no current law bans all guns for all people, including D.C. and Chicago. Such a thing was, at the time, deemed constitutional, but no longer is so, and it wasn't working anyhow due to illegal trafficking. Currently no one who is pro-control that I know is suggesting a return to that.
ReplyDelete"the gun control movement isn't about banning all guns to all people."
ReplyDeleteNo, just to most people. The rich, politically-connected and government and state officials will have no problem procuring firearms (or hiring armed security).
The thing you have to understand is that just because you personally may not have any interest in banning all guns to most people, the "gun control movement" as a whole does. There are gun control advocates who want to ban handguns, there are gun control advocates who want to ban so-called "assault weapons" (most modern sporting rifles, and even some lever action .22 rifles), there are gun control advocates who want to ban .50 caliber rifles (which also bans black powder muskets), there are gun control advocates who want to ban "high-powered sniper rifles" (which, in effect, is every hunting rifle), there are gun control advocates who want to just ban ammunition. There are even people who want to ban pellet guns and toy guns in general. There is no type of commonly owned, popular firearm that some gun control advocate somewhere does not want to outright ban.
So you can speak for yourself, but you cannot speak for the "gun control movement" as a whole and say it doesn't want to ban guns, because it absolutely does.
"Even with the strictest gun control laws, you are still able to get a gun for self-defense."
Sure, as long as you are not attacked outside your home, and are strong enough to handle a shotgun, or as long you have enough room in your apartment to wield a long, wooden-stock hunting rifle, since pistol grips and collapsible/folding polymer stocks that make a rifle shorter and easier to maneuver make it an "assault weapon" in your eyes.
Yes, even the strictest gun control laws allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, as long as the self-defense situation occurs in those those extremely narrow parameters/circumstances.
Baldr: “To answer the last part of your question, no current law bans all guns for all people, including D.C. and Chicago. Such a thing was, at the time, deemed constitutional, but no longer is so, and it wasn't working anyhow due to illegal trafficking. Currently no one who is pro-control that I know is suggesting a return to that.”
ReplyDeleteBut every gun controller I have ever read or heard speak stood against the Heller and McDonald decision at the time. It is pretty easy to find out how the Brady Campaign or VPC felt on the matter. Even after the precedent of Heller was set, gun control groups universally fought for why that should only apply to the 68 square miles that are not part of any state. What you are talking about is admitting defeat. Did you support the Heller decision when it was made? Were you bold enough to stand against the rest of the gun control community and say “DC and Chicago are wrong- individuals should be allowed some type of self-defense with a gun”?
TS, I was for the ban at the time and the rights of municipalities to make the decision. But it wasn't working. Like I said, legislating at the city level for a ban on all guns or only types of guns doesn't work when they can so easily be trafficked in. Such legislation would have been more effective at the state or federal level. Is this "admitting defeat?" Yes, probably so, on that issue. However, the discussion on total bans is over, at least for the right to own *a* gun for self defense, due to the rulings. Now it comes to a discussion of which limitations are acceptable.
ReplyDelete"Thirdpower, that used to be true for D.C. and Chicago, at least for purchases within those cities. But may statement is about current laws. "
ReplyDeleteYep. And the BC and Joyce foundation groups supported them as 'common sense'. What reason should we regard your groups' claims now?
You keep claiming that the violence is due to trafficking. You still refuse to answer why the violence/homicide rates DROP immediately outside Chicago and even only effect certain neighborhoods.